fyi. Resisting the Neoliberal Discourse of Technology
Janice
Resisting the Neoliberal Discourse of Technology
The Politics of Cyberculture in the Age of the Virtual Class
John Armitage
Totalitarianism is latent in technology. It was not merely Hitler or
Mussolini who were totalitarian, or the Pharaohs as far as I am concerned.
Totalitarianism is already present in the technical object.
- Paul Virilio 1
Such penetrating assessments of technology are increasingly exceptional:
nearly all the political, economic, and cultural texts that surround us
suggest that we are entering a truly new technological and democratic age.
Indeed, modern day pharaohs, such as Microsoft's Bill Gates constantly
assert that the world is on the brink of a "technological revolution". 2
Meanwhile, neoliberal politicians, like American Vice President Al Gore,
see the "Global Information Infrastructure" as nothing less than the basis
of a new Athenian age of electronic democracy. 3
The Neoliberal Discourse of Technology
Contemporary neoliberalism is the pan-capitalist theory and practice of
explicitly technologized, or "telematic", societies. 4 Neoliberalism is of
course a political philosophy which originated in the advanced countries
in the 1980s. It is associated with the idea of "liberal fascism": free
enterprise, economic globalization and national corporatism as the
institutional and ideological grounds for the civil disciplining of
subaltern individuals, "aliens" and groups. However, while pan-capitalism
appears largely impregnable to various oppositional political forces and
survives broadly uncontested, it nonetheless relies extensively on a
specifically neoliberal discourse of technology. What is more, this
discourse is principally concerned with legitimating the political and
cultural control of individuals, groups, and new social movements through
the material and ideological production, promotion, distribution, and
consumption of self-styled "virtual" technologies like virtual reality
(VR) and cyberspace.
These contentions about pan-capitalism, telematics, and the neoliberal
discourse of virtual technologies derive from the fact that human labour
is no longer central to market-driven conceptions of business and
political activities. Actually, as far as some neoliberals are concerned,
technology is now the only factor of production. 5 Artefacts like VR,
cyberspace, and the Internet thus embody not "use value" but what Arthur
Kroker and Michael Weinstein term "abuse value":
The primary category of the political economy of virtual reality is abuse
value. Things are valued for the injury that can be done to them or that
they can do. Abuse value is the certain outcome of the politics of
suicidal nihilism. The transformation, that is, of the weak and the
powerless into objects with one last value: to provide pleasure to the
privileged beneficiaries of the will to purity in their sacrificial
bleeding, sometimes actual (Branch Davidians) and sometimes specular
(Bosnia). 6
The neoliberal analysis of production under the conditions of
pan-capitalism and telemetry accordingly focuses not on the outmoded
Marxian conception of the "labor process", but on the technological and
scientific processing of labour. 7 The result is that surplus labor is
transformed by relentless technological activity, and the means of virtual
production produce abuse value.
Technology and the Politics of Cyberculture
The technological fixations of the neoliberals are, of course, presently
extending themselves from virtual production to virtual culture; to
technoscience and to cyberculture, including the culture of cyborgs,
cyberfeminism, cyberspace, cyberwarfare, and cyberart. 8 Nietzsche
emphasizes, in The Wanderer and His Shadow, that technologies and machines
are "...premises whose thousand year conclusion no one has yet dared to
draw." 9 Yet, in scarcely over one hundred years, it has become clear that
technology is not only voraciously consuming what is left of "nature," but
is also busily constructing it anew. Nanotechnology, for example, brings
together the basic atomic building blocks of nature effortlessly, cheaply,
and in just about any molecular arrangement we ask. 10 Information and
communications technologies evoke the virtual architecture and circuitry
of fiber-optics, computer networks, cybernetic systems, and so on.
These technologies, these assemblages, though, need to be appreciated for
what they are: synthetic materials transformed into instruments of "the
will to virtuality," or of human incorporation - even "disappearance" -
into cybernetic machinery. Cybercultural technologies are agents of
physical colonization, imperialists of the human sensorium, created, like
Frankenstein, by our own raw desire. They represent what Virilio calls
"the third revolution", the impending bodily internalization of science
and technology. As Virilio recently defined the third revolution:
By this term I mean that technology is becoming something physically
assimilable, it is a kind of nourishment for the human race, through
dynamic inserts, implants and so on. Here, I am not talking about implants
such as silicon breasts, but dynamic implants like additional memory
storage. What we see here is that science and technology aim for
miniaturisation in order to invade the human body. 11
As a result, the division between living bodies and technology is
increasingly difficult to maintain; both are now so hopelessly entwined in
the "cyborgian" sociotechnical imagination. 12 We are well on our way to
"becoming machinic". As Deleuze and Guattari comment: "This is not
animism, any more than it is mechanism; rather it is universal machinism:
a plane of consistency occupied by an immense abstract machine comprising
an infinite number of assemblages." 13
Nevertheless, the technologically determinist assemblages of sundry
neoliberal computer mystics, like Jaron Lanier and John Perry Barlow, are
questionable because cybercultural technologies, like all technologies,
are innately political. Technologies like VR do not appear - like rainfall
- as heavenly gifts. They have to be willed into existence, they have to
be produced by real human beings. Information and communications
technologies, for instance, both contain and signify the cultural and
political values of particular human societies. Accordingly, these
technologies are always expressions of socioeconomic, geographical, and
political interests, partialities, alignments and commitments. In brief,
the will to technical knowledge is the will to technical power.
It is crucial, then, to redefine, and to develop a fully conscious and
wholly critical account of the neoliberal discourse of technology at work
in the realm of cyberculture; one that exposes not only the economic and
social interests embodied within cultural technologies, but also their
underlying authoritarianism. Maybe Marshall McLuhan was right? The medium
is the message. The question is, what does it say? Moreover, how does it
manage to say it so eloquently, so perfectly, that some among us are more
than "willing" to trade corporeality for virtuality? And all for what? A
chance to dance to the (pre-programmed) rhythms of technologized bodies?
Indeed, it is hard to disagree with Hakim Bey when he writes:
Physical separateness can never be overcome by electronics, but only by
"conviviality", by "living together" in the most literal physical sense.
The physically divided are also the conquered and the Controlled. "True
desires" - erotic, gustatory, olfactory, musical, aesthetic, psychic, &
spiritual - are best attained in a context of freedom of self and other in
physical proximity & mutual aid. Everything else is at best a sort of
representation. 14
Technology and the Virtual Class
What are the central political dynamics at work in the neoliberal
discourse of technology? Today, the development of this discourse is also
the development of the shifting determinations of the virtual class. For
it is this, "...social strata in contemporary pan-capitalism that have
material and ideological interest in speeding up and intensifying the
process of virtualization and heightening the will to virtuality." 15
Resisting the unconstrained development of the neoliberal discourse of
technology is vital because such resistance impedes the contemporary
development of the virtual class. To some of its members, like Douglas
Coupland, the reigning technological discourse constitutes the
narcissistic flowering of long-held personal ambitions, while to others,
like Wired's neoliberal evangelist Nicholas Negroponte, it represents the
beginning of a new techno-religion. To Alvin & Heidi Toffler, the
neoliberal discourse heralds the emergence of a whole new civilization
while to Bill Gates and Kevin Kelly it means material wealth and political
influence beyond measure. 16
Certainly, it is possible to characterise the present period of
self-consciously "spectacular" technological innovation as being driven
primarily by pan-capitalism's need to arm itself against the onset of
virtual class warfare. 17 Without doubt, the virtual class must, at some
stage - and probably with the acquiescence, if not the full participation
of global technocratic, political and military elites - confront living
labour, actual communities, tangible spaces, material environments, and
physical, breathing, bodies. The neoliberal discourse of technology
therefore represents an attempt by the virtual class to open up a new
period in the cybernetic carnival that is pan-capitalism. The unfolding of
the neoliberal discourse of technology is thus the unfolding of virtual
class relations. This is the true nature of social communications in the
contemporary era.
For these reasons it is essential to advance unorthodox, bottom-up,
explanations of the evolution of the neoliberal discourse of technology.
The chief aim ought to be the equipping of the digitally dispossessed with
counter arguments and active political strategies that will work against
what the late Christopher Lasch might have called "the revolt of the
(virtual) elites and the betrayal of (electronic) democracy." 18
Make no mistake, VR and cyberspace have not simply opened up new wealth
generating possibilities for the virtual elites. They have also opened up
new political prospects for those who wish to see the spectacular
representational systems of crash culture disappear. What is important in
the interim, then, is to challenge the pronouncements of the virtual class
wherever they appear and join with others in a comprehensive and detailed
critique of the neoliberal discourse of technology in a variety of fields
ranging from VR to cyberwarfare and beyond. 19 Further, such challenges
need to involve a multiplicity of individuals and groups. These might
range from school kids and students disenchanted with the increasing
replacement of education by mere technocratic information, to disaffected
computer industry workers, or simply local communities seeking control
over their own technological environments.
Virtual politics, therefore, should be founded on defying the neoliberal
discourse of technology currently being fashioned by the virtual class. It
is crucial to ensure that the political genealogy of technology, of
virtual reality, of the reality of virtuality, is uncovered by numerous
individuals, groups, classes, and new social movements. Indeed, without
such excavations, the increasingly institutionalised neoliberal discourse
of technology currently being promoted by the virtual class will rapidly
become a source of immense social power. This is why concrete, corporeal,
and ideological struggles over the nature and meaning of technology are so
important in the realm of virtual politics. It is also why the
specifically neoliberal discourse of the virtual class needs to be
countered.
The pan-capitalist revolution and the development from industrial to
virtual production have generated the neoliberal discourse of technology.
It provides the virtual class with an ideological rationale for the ever
increasing manufacture of virtual distractions (e.g., movies, VR, and
interactive video games). Consequently, many human activities are no
longer simply mediated through technology. Indeed, they are so utterly
"possessed" by technology that the distinction between virtual activities
and actual activities borders on the incomprehensible. 20 The ambitions of
the neoliberal discourse of technology are not only unremitting but also
potentially infinite.
Totalitarianism is latent in technology. It is not simply the virtual
class that is totalitarian. Totalitarianism is always present in
technology itself.
Virilio's acute observations on technology are therefore essentially
correct: his theoretical analysis indicates that while we are indeed in
the midst of some kind of technological transition, it is improbable that
such a transition will usher in a new era of digital democracy. 21 On this
view, then, humanity is not on the verge of the kind of technological and
democratic revolution envisaged by the neoliberals.
What separates a critical interpretation of technology from that of global
technological entrepreneurs and leading politicians is a determination to
forge a radical understanding of technology's consequences. The advantage
of this kind of analysis is that it focuses on key aspects of technology
that are rarely, if ever, voiced by computer manufacturers and political
pundits. Indeed, the general absence of a critical understanding of
technology is one of the chief reasons why so many people seem to be so
baffled by the "mysteries" of technology.
Thus, it is vital to resist both the neoliberal discourse of technology
and the contemporary development of pan-capitalism. In the specific
context of the political debates over the discourse of cyberculture, then,
it is important to question the uncritical and antidemocratic conception
of technology presently being elaborated and disseminated by the virtual
class in its quest for actual wealth and power.
While technology is obviously an extremely important and determining
force, it is crucial to remember that it is not the only force or agent of
change. The virtual class is not simply an assortment of technological and
visual representations. In fact, it is all too real. It is the class that
at this moment is rewriting the history of virtual and other technologies
while simultaneously controlling their organized production, distribution
and consumption.
As a result of it's monopolistic control of technology, the virtual class
is presently being courted by the newly ascendant virtual political class
(of which Newt Gingrich in the US and Tony Blair in the UK are examples).
This class opposes all those who resist the neoliberal discourse of
technology in whatever form it takes (e.g., anti-road building and animal
rights protests by young people). It is time, then, to radically rethink,
redefine and reinterpret the very meaning of technology, politics, and
cyberculture in the age of the virtual class.
Notes
1. Paul Virilio and Carlos Oliveira. "The Silence of the Lambs: Paul
Virilio in Conversation". In CTHEORY. Vol 19. No 1-2. 1996. p.3.
2. Bill Gates. The Road Ahead. , New York: Viking Press, 1995.
3. See, for example, Al Gore. "Forging a New Athenian Age of Democracy".
In Intermedia. Vol 22. 1994. p.14-16.
4. Much of my argument in the following pages draws on Arthur Kroker and
Michael Weinstein's Data Trash: The Theory of the Virtual Class. ,
Montreal: New World Perspectives, 1994, and New York: St. Martin's Press,
1994.
5. See, for instance, Jeremy Rifkin. The End of Work: The Decline of the
Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era. New York: G. P.
Putnam's Sons, 1995; Kevin Kelly. New Rules for the New Economy: 10 Ways
the Network Economy is Changing Everything. London: Fourth Estate, 1998.
6. Kroker and Weinstein. Data Trash. p.64.
7. See, for example, William Di Fazio. "Technoscience and the labor
process". In Technoscience and Cyberculture. Edited by Stanley Aronowitz,
Barbara Martinson and Michael Menser. London: Routledge, 1996. p.195-204.
8. On the phenomenon of cyberculture and cyborgs see, for example, Stanley
Aronowitz, Barbara Martinson and Michael Menser. Eds. Technoscience and
Cyberculture. London: Routledge, 1996; Chris Hables Gray. Ed. The Cyborg
Handbook. London: Routledge, 1995.
9. Friedrich Nietzsche. The Wanderer and His Shadow. New York: Gordon
Press, 1974. p.176.
10. The most obvious reference here is, Eric Drexler. Engines of Creation.
New York: Anchor, 1986.
11. Paul Virilio and John Armitage. "From Modernism to Hypermodernism and
Beyond: An Interview with Paul Virilio". Translated by Patrice Riemens.
Forthcoming in Paul Virilio, a Special Issue of Theory Culture & Society
on the Work of Paul Virilio. Vol 16. 1999.
12. See, Donna Haraway. "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology and
Socialist-feminism in the Late Twentieth Century". In her Simians, Cyborgs
and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Associations Books,
1991. p.149-181.
13. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1987. p.256.
14. Hakim Bey. "The Lemonade Ocean & Modern Times: A Position Paper by
Hakim Bey". (http://www.tO.or.at/hakimbey/hakimbey.htm, Internet, 1991).
p.3.
15. Kroker and Weinstein. Data Trash. p.163.
16. See, for instance, Douglas Coupland. Microserfs. Northampton: Harper
Collins, 1995; Nicholas Negroponte. Being Digital. New York: Knof, 1995;
Alvin Toffler and Heidi Toffler. Creating A New Civilization: The Politics
of the Third Wave. New York: Turner Publishing, 1995; Bill Gates. The Road
Ahead. New York: Viking Press, 1995; Kevin Kelly. Out of Control: The New
Biology of Machines. London: Fourth Estate, 1994, and Kelly's New Rules
for the New Economy: 10 Ways the Network Economy is Changing Everything.
London: Fourth Estate, 1998.
17. Guy Debord. Society of the Spectacle. Detroit: Black and Red,
1983.
18. Christopher Lasch. The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of
Democracy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995.
19. See, for example, Chris Chesher. "Colonizing Virtual Reality.
Construction of the Discourse of Virtual Reality, 1984-1992". In
Cultronix. Vol 1. No 1. 1994; Manuel De Landa. War in the Age of
Intelligent Machines. New York: Zone Books, 1991; Paul Virilio. War and
Cinema: The Logistics of Perception. London: Verso, 1989.
20. This argument can be found in Arthur Kroker. The Possessed Individual:
Technology and Postmodernity. Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1992.
21. Paul Virilio. "The Third Interval: A Critical Transition". In Verena
Andermatt Conley. Ed. Rethinking Technologies. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1993. p.3-12; Paul Virilio. The Art of the Motor.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.
John Armitage lectures in politics and media studies at the University of
Northumbria at Newcastle, UK. He is currently editing Paul Virilio, a
special issue of the journal Theory Culture & Society, and working on
Virilio Live: Selected Interviews.
****NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this materia
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes****
--
For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/